Calculating the Purpose and Legitimacy of the Upper House

Calculating the Purpose and Legitimacy of the Upper House

Ms Molloy & Ms Vongdouanchanh

I have sent a personal note addressed thru your office to Mr Maurice Quinn and will attempt to phone him today to address the "arrogance" issue he expressed re: the phraseology of my of my Political Action Committee's name.

If you'd be kind enough to consider the following as an "on point" follow up to "Senate's $4,000 requirement $56,750 in today's dollar"

Dear Editor,

Two questions are at the nub of the discussion about the Senate of Canada 1) its Purpose and 2) its Legitimacy

On Purpose we must look at the name Upper House, and its antecedents a) the Legislative Council from the Constitutional Act of 1791, b) the US Senate, c) the Council of Grandmothers of the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy and d) the House of Lords. 

In all cases these Upper Chambers of Sober Second Thought (save the current, all-political version of the US equal-states body) were comprised of a representatives of distinctly different constituency from the Lower House - the best example being the Haudenosaunee's Council of Grandmothers (scoll to para 5&6)- any decision by the Warrior Council had to be approved by this Upper council of "institutional memory" and long-term vision, comprised solely of elderly women.

Further on Purpose, irrespective of the Canadian dollar's value vs the US dollar ... what amount of land would $4,000.00 buy 1 mile, 10 miles or 100 miles distant from the core of Montreal, Toronto, Halifax or Ottawa - translate that acreage into 2012 money and I think we have a better idea of what the net-worth and property-equity dis/qualifications were intend to denote.

On Legitimacy, the current Senate (like it's equally disemboweled/disrespected Big Sister, the Office of Governor General) lacks legitimacy because of the uppity-ness of the Commons. After decades of stacking the Senate with grateful, Yes, Prime Minister party-disciples, there is not much second-thought going on (I'll resist a comment on the sober aspect), ESPECIALLY when it's crunch time and  Big Brother Pierre or Brian or Jean or Stephen needs a Bill approved.

Further on Legitimacy, if s.26 (the GST Senators clause, permitting the GovGen to appoint 4 or 8 new Senators to break up a logjam) is still "not spent" by time nor desuetude, then ALL of the BNA/Constitution Act 1867 (as amended) still stand . The problem is .... we're NOT following its written provisions!

Reading our foundational document in full (or even just the Executive ss.9-15 vs Legislative ss.17-57 + Royal Assent/Disallowance ss.55-57 + Prov. Exec. ss. 64-66 + Fed Disallowance of Prov. Bills s.90 parts) is an eye-opener for most Canadians since what is described de jure is so far different that what we have observed our whole lives de facto (our system only became turned in it's head in 1940 by one temporary, emergency, mid-war, Order in Council  PC 1940-1121, approved March 25/1940 by Wm L m King's inner circle in the absence of a Clerk (retired Jan 1/40) and Governor General (died suddenly Feb/40).

I respectfully submit that the structure of Canadian governance was designed and remains hierarchical. The Confederal/General Executive is superior to the Legislative, The Senate is superior to the Commons, The Confederal is superior to the provinces (can disallow any Provincial Bill s.90) and the Provincial Executive is superior to the Provincial Legislative.

Most egregiously (notwithstanding the fact that our Vice Regal Office of Governor General, who legally represents the Monarch from 1867, plus had its duties re-affirmed & expanded to Commander in Chief in 1947) is now-deemed nothing but the titular Head of State and that Officeholder dares not raise a peep of contrary advice, encouragement or warning to the Usurper-King of the PMO/PCO - wholly contrary to the law of the land) neither the 'People', nor the 'Citizens', nor the Taxpayers, nor the Residents, nor the 'Householders', nor the 'Voters', nor 'Members of the Public', nor 'Peoples', nor 'Individuals', nor 'Subjects of the Crown of Canada have ANY standing in the Hierarchical Power-Sharing Agreement we call "the Constitution".

rce

Robert Ede,     

The Majority of Canadians P.A.C.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/deganaweda-hopi-prophecy-2012.htm
"Women had equal status within the tribal council. They formed the Council of Grandmothers that looked out for the survival of the family structure above all things, for without the family structure, the people could not continue. No major decision that would affect the tribe as a whole was ever made by one individual of either gender, or any singular council; all councils were accountable to the Council of Grandmothers. Thus, they had devised a matriarchal system whereby no structure of dictatorship could arise and seize power from the people themselves. There simply was no position that allowed for the rise of a tyrant within their society."